War

The bottom line is this:

This is a war game which states if you have more than one country, be prepared to defend it.

The biggest problem is most players have not learned how to play the war game. How much more defense can a country put up than what is in place now? If the attacking player has a very strong offense, it's only a matter of time before that player takes that country, especially if the defender is fighting defensively rather than offensively. Thats the problem now, most players dont know how to fight. They panic when they are decd, and they think how are they going to protect their country from falling in the hands of the attacking player, rather than preparing an offensive attack. Your defense will do just fine while you are attacking the aggressor, providing your garrisons and air d is set up properly.

Making defensive weapons stronger won't alleviate the problem. Providing the attacker has ample weapons, it will only take that a player a little longer to take that country.

If WGC tries to make the war game balanced, it will deter anyone from fighting, causing alot of players to quit.

I still disagree with c3 warfare. The attacker needs to put something on the line. I can fight all day long with nothing at risk,by fighting from c3s, but part of the fun of fighting is to try take a country while not losing any of yours.

A way to eliminate c3 warfare is for wgc to increasethe distance fp/bombers/ military transport can travel. Maybe add re-fuellers to allow this. This would eliminate c3 tactics.

Also, there was talk of landing forces? Is this in the works? This could be a factor for taking a country. Part of the WI needs to be destroyed by way of ground forces that were part of a landing force and this can be a target for the defender, which would delay the ground assault, by the attacker needing re-inforcements to replaced the destroyed landing forces?

Doing away with feds won't fix the problem either. Players will still have allies that will participate in wars.

1 war a month per player is absurd.

I would like to see something in place where 2 players can choose a time where they can both fight at the same time. Also I'd like to see blackouts increased to at least 8 hours.

Thats it for now, more to follow.

P.S.- wendy if you have nothing to add to this topic, please refrain from spamming.

"A way to eliminate c3 warfare is for wgc to increasethe distance fp/bombers/ military transport can travel. Maybe add re-fuellers to allow this. This would eliminate c3 tactics."

Not sure if I get this. It would allow people to fight from greater distances, but it wouldn't stop a player from C3 fighting to reduce risk.

And I don't see a reason to reduce numbers of wars per world. What good does that do? And why limit the number of attackers? One of the many parts of the game is making allies for attacking and defending. Personally, I think a lot if not most of suggestions are being made that won't affect an aggressive fighter at all. They will adapt and find other ways to do the same thing.

I'm saying the same thing over and over, because I believe its true. As a bandaid, use my WP suggestion. Let this give W3C time to make a more interesting and (severly) less time intensive wargame. Right now you have, basically, half a game because most people play SimCountry for the econ only, "nation building" part. You've done a good job with it. It (economies) are something you can learn, plan, micromanage if you want, compete over, and then walk away from after 15 minutes of login each day. The wargame is not like that and will never draw casual gamers.

I realize that you, Tom, and W3C are looking for a quick fix. I'm telling you, if you want a successful fix, we should REALLY be talking about what changes we can make to the system.

And hopefully that's my last sermon on this subject.

"24 Add counter attack units that will attack selected targets if the country is attacked.
We could add what a player called response units. The units could be of a special type, or stealth units. They could be secret, never showing how many units are available and what the attack plans are.

Attack plans will be set by the player. These attacks could be high quality and effective in destroying essential targets. The attacks will be triggered if the country is attacked and could be launched automatically in addition to the current automatic defense.

An attacker will not be able to assume that the war is just a matter of some clicking.
The units could be traded on the market, and as a player suggested here, they could be produced by a corporation (or created in the same way other units are created)."

_____________________________
automatic response units programmed by the gamer to attack specific targets in the attacking country would be absolutely outstanding.

Does anyone see the inherent strength of this?

The strategic minded could really enjoy this. adds new depth to war, without the need to click many, many, many, times.

This would open up a whole new element of war planning and execution.

this could help the defender as well as the attacker, again, all with less clicking currently needed to wade trough and find those pesky little high value targets.

ummmmmmmm....

This is a home run in my book.

borderc , I would like to implement re-fuellers to give fp/bombers/military transport a greater to distance, after c3 warfare is eliminated. we can still take c3s for workers and such, but we shouldn't be able to attack another country using a c3, that has a off. index or def. index below a certain percentage.

Keto, stop spamming about c3 wars... please refrain from drowning out better ideas for use of w3c resources.

That subject was already addressed.

Keto, I would like too see the already promised features including the battle royal world. That special world made of 'fair fights' and 'good wars'. The one and only place I can see this feud between you ladies and myself ending, or at least producing a means to an end, before any of these changes are implemented.

And Keto, if you don't have anything new to add to the conversation other than c3 wars, pleasse refrain from spamming and drowning out those who are participating in the thread.

Who is spamming? You, so...shut up. He's adding ideas to the conversation. You, however, none at all.

Geez, windbag, can't you come up with your own lines without having to use mine?

Stop Spamming.

YO Everyone. Say hi back if you see this, It will give you good luck for being nice to someone

I will look in all details later today and come with a next version and possible new suggestions made in the last hours.

We also want to start moving and take some decisions so that the discussion can focus on issues that are controversial, adding more details and trying to concluded at some point.

we are not in a hurry to close the discussion.

In the mean time:

We will implement #4 (The time before war starts to 48 hours).
and #5 - blackout periods, from 4 to 8 hours.

We will implement #8 but details on exactly how many can declare at the same time will follow.

Point 12, the defensive power of weapons:

we will look into the individual weapons and will make some small changes to start with.

The weapons document will be updated to show all correct values. It has many incorrect values and must be updated independently of current tuning.

#21 is not relevant to this discussion and will be removed. (Attacks on C3 countries).

#18 - conditions to opt out of a war and
#24 - Automatic defense, enhanced by automatic attack units

these two issues will be rewritten with some examples.

Awesome


And hi Barren...

It is clear that we will not satisfy everyone and it is also clear that whatever we do, will not really solve all these problems. The players are very different and have very different objectives, time they want to spend etc. We will not make huge changes quickly, but rather tune step by step.

We are focused on the objectives as stated before. We are determined to make the war game a popular option for many more players than before but at the same time, allow others to have a great time without it.

Making the war game a more popular option is only possible as mentioned many times, if they have a fighting chance and can make even very large attackers think twice. Make defense, supported by offensive power much easier to use so everybody understands. Some argue that this is the problem, so we should solve it by giving them easy tools to defend.

I cannot see why anyone can have any objections to a situation where an attacker is suffering some serious damage when attacking. There is no need for a war process where you build a huge force and then hit a butterfly with a nuke. No risk, no damage, no pain, and move to the next one.

Why not have C3s capable of hitting back hard?

We hear people diverting the discussion to the WP issue, arguing that it should be largely removed. The fact that most players look for shelter under WP shows that they do not think war is fair and do not believe they can survive a war. Some are just uninterested in wars.
Removing the WP is not going to help them and is not a solution.

Removing WP for the feds that are capable of defending themselves is a good idea. They play the war game then why hide behind WP?

Changes we make should be such that removing your WP will become a smaller risk. This can be achieved by some balancing of the war game. We cannot force small player to remove their WP. We should make it attractive to do so. However, large military force should prevail against a smaller one. We cannot diminish the difference just make sure that even small players can hit hard.

There is talk about war incentive and we agree, but not to the extent of denying peaceful players awards.
Simcountry has the option to play peaceful or to play the war game. Both are viable options.

Having more diversification between the worlds is indeed necessary but we can hardly make major changes to the current worlds where players are relying on current parameters.

Back to the updated list:

We will NOT implement all the items and we will NOT implement many of them at the same time. We will also NOT wait very long before starting the implementation of some.

1. It seems that everybody would like to have a solution for the deactivation issue.
We have many options to try to reduce deactivation and reduce the man power problem for the army. We will come up with possible solutions.

2. More time when war starts and/or the option for the defender to choose for one or two extra days or the option to start the war right now.

It will be implemented quickly. Similar to item 4.

3. Allowing fed mates to join and have the war start for everybody at the same time.

Same. Everyone is for it. This will be the two phased start of war with a wait period for anyone to talk or join.

4. Increase the time between war declaration and the start of the war to 48 hours on all the worlds. Allow the defender to start whenever he wants to and have the surprise effect.

Same.

5. Increase the blackout time to 8 hours from 4.

Also positive. Will be implemented quickly.

6. Expanding the spending limits for defensive weapons for the defender once war is declared.
Example: set the spending limit to 5 times the standard value.

There is support for an increase.

7. Imbalance between the warring parties cannot be eliminated or severe limitations will have to be imposed. Comparing the offensive war indexes of both parties and limiting the difference to a factor of 3 or 5 or 10 can help a little.

This version seems to be supported.

8. Reducing the number of countries and players that can declare on one country.

Mostly positive reactions but based on players, not countries.
We think of 3 players with max three countries. (Example: 1 player with 3 countries or 3 players with 1 country each). Response declarations should be limited too.

9. Set a time limit on all wars. It has to stop within a set period.

Again, based on players but reactions are mixed.

10. Introducing automatic defense building features at a chosen level will make it easier for the defenders.
Example: Automatic building of military units, based on players choice and taking care of all the orders of al weapons and ammo, materials etc. One click and some game months later, 10 units end up created and ready to go.

Largely positive.

11. Starting a market for military units and making it possible to purchase complete units, ready to go, at a certain fighting level. This can be limited to the defender, after war or a conflict is declared. Some want it for both parties. Defender needs it more as the attacker is ready for war.

Largely positive.

12. Increasing the defensive power of individual weapons to reduce the advantage of the offensive weapons.

50/50. We add our vote for it.

13. A limited war option that can cause damage to the other party but without the risk of losing the country. This option may not be interesting for the large aggressive feds but might encourage smaller players to declare on larger ones and reduce their power.

Also 50/50 and a suggestion to divert it to more powerful sneak attacks.

14. Allowing more fed allies to participate in the defense. This will allow three or four air wings to defend against an air attack with much higher losses to the attacker.

We don't see how anybody could object. This will increase the defensive power of countries and make the war more risky to the attacker. An one who objects to it really wants a free ride and trivial wars.

15. The possibility for players to complain about a specific player and prevent him from going to war for a set period may help. It is more time consuming to build.

16. WP:

a. No WP at all for fed members with large armies and a high offensive war index.
(plus measures to prevent countries from going in and out of feds to dock this rule).

Also said: Fed WP should be on or off for all the members at once.

50/50. Seems fair to force large feds to face the music.

b. Limited WP for all, but before declaring war, 50% of the assets must reside in countries that are not protected.

Mostly supported.

17. Change the rules for sneak attacks:
a. The name of the attacker should be known.

We drop this option.

b. Sneak attacks could be made more powerful and include more weapons.

Some support, some want sneak attacks to go away. We will keep sneak attacks. More types of weapons higher frequency are an option.

c. Forbid sneak attacks by very large powers-feds with a high offensive index total!

No interest and too many limitations. We drop this one.

d. Upgrade sneak attacks to the level of a limited war.

Some support. Not a popular item.

18. Set conditions for anyone who wants to stop the war NOW. Assets transfer? Other conditions?

Supported by everyone but details are crucial.

Options:

a. The payout when you request to stop the war should be preset and will depend on the finances of the country or population.
b. Warring parties should agree but the defender must have the option to decide to stop.
c. After it happened, the country will be immune for war for a set period.

19 Limit war declarations based on the ratio of number of wars per player.
You can declare war if the number of wars you participated in is not more than double the number of wars for your opponent. Small numbers can be excluded and wars against C3s will always remain possible. This should be based on the user profile and all his wars across all the worlds.

20 Make it possible to transfer military units. This is similar to the market idea which is easier to implement. - we not be implemented. A market will be implemented.

21 Limit the numbers of c3s that can be attacked per real month. (This is a different issue) - remove.

22 More power to the SC, to stop nuke PLAYERS instead of countries. Also allow the SC to, stop wars. This too is not directly related although the SC could help in trying to level the field.

Remove.

23 Limit the max number of wars per player per world per month on a real player.
Extreme. Not the idea but 1 is of course too limiting.
How many? 10?

Not popular.

24 Add counter attack units that will attack selected targets if the country is attacked.
We could add what a player called response units. The units could be of a special type, or stealth units. They could be secret, never showing how many units are available and what the attack plans are.

Attack plans will be set by the player. These attacks could be high quality and effective in destroying essential targets. The attacks will be triggered if the country is attacked and could be launched automatically in addition to the current automatic defense. It could be started manually during a war. Strategy to be set by the player, for all the automatic response units or for each group separately.

An attacker will not be able to assume that the war is just a matter of some clicking.

The units could be traded on the market, and as a player suggested here, they could be produced by a corporation (or created in the same way other units are created).

The idea here is that although we have automatic defense, it is insufficient and experienced war lords cut easily through these defenses. Many have stated that a good defense include offensive forces. If we add this, the automatic defenses will include offensive forces.
So if we support the defense with these units, it will be able to bite and the attack will not be a picnic.

We fully agree that the automatic defense as we have implemented it, was incomplete and insufficient and such an addition could improve it.
So far, I see some support for this.

25 Require attackers to have a minimum FI level. Suggested FI >120. Could be set lower.

26 Introduce a system of fortifying cities, bases, airports and fortifications to make them harder to destroy or damage.

27 Diversify the worlds and created different levels of risk. Put a price on safety.

I'm in favor of increasing the strength of defense relative to offense, compared to the current situation.

The current wisdom is that you can't win a war playing defense alone; a necessary part of real defense is to go on the offensive. That's not a rule of the game, it's just what we've figured out as good tactics, based on the rules as they currently stand.

There's a good percentage of players who would like to participate in the war game to the extent that they set up defenses which they expect can in theory withstand attack from any offense, if only they are strong enough. I don't know if there should be such thing as an impregnable country, but a fully garrisoned country should be able to last well more than a few hours, even against four players.

When a strong fighting fed is running on all cylinders no country or cluster is safe. That's why people keep #1 war-ranked countries in WP. In just a few hours they can be torn apart. I've rarely seen a country withstand determined attack by a competent foe in the past three years, and those that have were anything but passively defended.

When we say the offensive weapons are currently stronger than the defensive weapons we mean this: give me a lowly c3, and you take a fully garrisoned, 80M pop country with 100s of int and heli wings. We both have large amounts of game cash and coins so we can both utilize the maximum military space each month. If I can use offensive weapons, and you can only use defensive weapons, I'll defeat you with my lowly c3...it's just a matter of time, because of the relative costs and relative damage. You can argue details but the idea is true. More realistically I will have a few countries and some larger ones, and the time is not long.

Those of us who enjoy the offensive part of the game have to realize that we are the freaks, not the norm. We're needed as part of the ecosystem, but must remain a small part numerically or everything goes out of balance.

Warlords should be encouraging a greater challenge! Make it easier to passively defend a country, and fewer people will stay in WP. They'll be playing "the full game" which for most people does not include waging unprovoked war for fun and profit. Again, those who do are necessary to the game, else there's little need for the defensive end at all, but there needs to be a better balance.

Edit: I posted this before reading Tom's preceding message. I'm arguing specifically in favor of #12, and in general in favor of ways that will increase the relative strength of passive defense.

Tom I have had the luxury of testing some variables that I assume have already changed. While the numbers and results seem a bit steep, a good air defense seems to really become a much more viable option than WP.

I personally like the results this will make it very difficult to attack a player for the thrill of attacking and curb hyper aggression that is a problem in the game.

I tested some fighter wings vs a single air defense Wing.

My combos were as follow

1000 bombers 900 fp. Avg Unit Q 130
100 - 160 ish bomber loss to 180 - 240ish interceptor loss

1000 attack drones 900 fighter planes
900+ attack drone loss to 250ish Interceptor loss

smaller combos of fp were used but same shield ratio. The results were slightly less favorable as one would imagine. The above top two examples were an avg 130 attack wing, vs a single 100 Q defensive air wing.

While I think the numbers are staggeringly high, they are very reasonable. This will benefit many different aspects of the game. I am surprised to say the least.

Hyper Aggression. This will be diminished significantly. The amount of firepower and losses to an attacker going after a decent defense will certainly make an attacker justify his motives for attacking with greater care. It will no longer be a walk in the park even for large numbers of attackers to attack smaller less capable opponents. This adds realism, and gives meaning to having an adequate defense that costs money to maintain, but it will actually be formidable.

WP. War protection should be dramatically reduced as a result. A decent defense will make an attacker seriously contemplate attacking for silly reasons, or just to prove a point. Defense now is more attractive than WP in my eyes. If this current setup holds through the discussion.

Federation and political Structure. If these single unit and defender ratios hold, having a federated air defense to rely on will make attacking a very serious undertaking. Attackers will do so knowing they will be throwing a lot of assets to the wind. This will promote and encourage a shift back to federations for mutual defense and falling away from mutual aggression. Wars and conflicts will now more than ever favor conflict resolution through means of diplomacy to avoid catastrophic waste of precious military assets and resources.

I could not have hoped for a better result coming from any change. Most have been frowned upon in the past for different reasons. This by far has to be one of the most mutually beneficial changes that support the growth of the game not solitary dominance by any single group of organized or determined players. I can only hope that the remaining changes are equally attractive and beneficial.

Thank You Tom, and W#C for a fair and objective look at this and all the complaints/concerns posted here. I'm out!

"8. Reducing the number of countries and players that can declare on one country.

Mostly positive reactions but based on players, not countries.
We think of 3 players with max three countries. (Example: 1 player with 3 countries or 3 players with 1 country each). Response declarations should be limited too. " -tom

ok, i strongly disagree with the number of players/countries being 3. its already been proven, that with out ANY changes, stronger defense can take 4 or more... by allowing more decs against a country, 10, it allows aggressor to bring enough guns to defeat beefed up defense. meaning, that defenders would need fed support. This would encourage the fed system. however, manually setting a limit on attackers, in such a way that makes it possible for unbreakable defense, is not the goal...

Tom, if unbreakable defense is the goal... then the 3 number is an excellent choice.

....

Now, no one will have WP YAAAY!

I can agree with most except:

14. Allowing more fed allies to participate in the defense. This will allow three or four air wings to defend against an air attack with much higher losses to the attacker.

We don't see how anybody could object. This will increase the defensive power of countries and make the war more risky to the attacker. An one who objects to it really wants a free ride and trivial wars.

I've been largely on the econ players/defensive players side in this argument and I'm completely against this. I have to go back to work, but I'll hopefully have time to state my argument later.

14. Allowing more fed allies to participate in the defense. This will allow three or four air wings to defend against an air attack with much higher losses to the attacker.

We don't see how anybody could object. This will increase the defensive power of countries and make the war more risky to the attacker. An one who objects to it really wants a free ride and trivial wars.

"I've been largely on the econ players/defensive players side in this argument and I'm completely against this. I have to go back to work, but I'll hopefully have time to state my argument later." bc

bc, i'm with you on that. and am looking forward to your comment.

We're making a lot of progress!

6. If defensive spending is increased for the defender in a war, that creates an incentive for fake war. I don't see a way to prevent fake wars. Some players will bribe someone into declaring a fake war, or will use a multi account. It's more fair not to increase defensive spending for the defender.

10. Automatic building of military units is excellent! Please do the same with supply units. Alternatively, military units and supply units could be sold as products of corps.

12. This is not a good idea. Offensive weapons don't have an advantage. If increasing the power of defensive weapons results in more clicking to destroy targets, that will discourage war. I thought the goal was to encourage more war.

18. The "nominal value" page of each country calculates the nominal value in terms of gold coins. That could serve as the basis for calculating a payment to end the war. I suggest that the "loser" pay 25% of its nominal value to the "winner."

The automation could use its official exchange rate for gold coins to calculate that 25% as game cash. Then the automation can transfer that amount of game cash from the "loser" to the "winner," when the "loser" decides to pay for an end to the war. If the "loser" doesn't have enough game cash in the country, then that country ends up in debt.

19. The ratio of number of wars per player should be based only on wars against player-controlled countries. Some players conquer a lot of c3s but that doesn't provide much military experience. If a ratio is used, then the number of applicable wars of each player should be public. That way we can plot who we can attack.

20. This is an excellent idea. Transferring military units as military aid could be similar to transferring disaster relief. This would provide more international participation in wars, and hopefully would promote more player interaction.

23. The warlords want more players to have war. A big incentive would be to let more players conquer inactive countries, which provides crucial military training. But right now, the warlords mostly monopolize the conquest of asset-rich inactives.

Limiting the max number of player versus player wars per player, per world, per real month allows a lot more players to conquer inactives. Do we want more players to have real military training and war experience, or not?

It takes 10 to 30 hours to fight a typical war against a substantially defended country. Since there are 5 worlds, this proposed limit would give each player a potential maximum of 50 to 150 hours per real month of player versus player war. How can that not be enough war?

If the warlords continue monopolizing the conquest of asset-rich inactives, how exactly are more players going to learn war? And what incentive do they have to learn war?

24. This is an excellent idea. The counter attack units would provide a lot more automation, and less clicking.

25. An FI of 120 is nothing. C3s typically have an FI of 150. An FI of least 150 makes more sense. But I don't know why this change is an improvement.

26. This implies even more clicking to destroy targets. Plus clicking to fortify those targets. This is a not a good idea.

27. Yes, the worlds should be differentiated. There are warlords trying to turn all the worlds into a Fearless Blue on steroids. That's not good. It would be good to have a world with no war, and a world with no war protection or secure mode.

Some suggestions to reduce war clicking:

1. Counter-attack units, military units, and supply units should all be products of corps. There would be less clicking to buy those units than to manually create them.

2. In the old war engine, we could navigate navies by entering specific coordinates. It would reduce clicking if we have the option of navigating military units by entering the coordinates of their specific target.

Each target already has coordinates. But now we often have to navigate military units multiple times to reach their targets.

3. It would reduce clicking if the range of offensive, land-based military units is increased. That way we wouldn't need to navigate military units so much to shoot targets.

Right now the range is 35 km, which is 2 or 3 hexagons on the country map. I suggest that military units have a range 3 times that much.

I know it sounds unrealistic for heavy artillery to hit a target 100 kilometers away. But these are sophisticated, futuristic weapons, right?

4. Years ago I was brutually ridiculed when I suggested reducing the number of targets. Back then, countries could have 1,200+ targets. Thanks for the reductions! Here I go again.

Please reduce the number of targets again, so a big war doesn't require thousands of clicks. Right now a big, defended country typically has 300-500 targets.

I suggest a maximum limit of 50 forts, and that bases not be included in the War Index. As far I Know, countries can have up to 25 cities, 35 towns, and 35 counties. I suggest reducing that to a maximum of 20 of each by increasing the population of each.

"There is talk about war incentive and we agree, but not to the extent of denying peaceful players awards.
Simcountry has the option to play peaceful or to play the war game. Both are viable options. " -Tom

You made a valid point, please hear out my counter point.

theirs allot of ground i'm willing to give. but the more that you try to make players safe, with out creating any incentive to be a war player, or disadvantage to being peace only... the less desirable the war game will become.

as it is, many players don't play the war game, based on the fact that they are intimidated by it. but by going to extremes of equalizing it, will remove any incentive to start a war...

where as i feel that any rule can be used both ways... their is an obvious extreme, that makes the game unplayable.

for example, if a player's interest in sc is the war game, why limit them to 1 dec against a player a month? that is absurd.

which leads me to my point about limiting peaceful players.

I had to directly ask for my idea, of limiting peaceful players to be addressed. otherwise it was just totally ignored. and the reaction to it, is that it was unrealistic. and you had a valid point, the game should be rewarding regardless of your stance on war.

however, the absurd suggestion of limiting the number times a player can dec on other players, was included. its obvious that their is a strong influence toward your opinion. Where absurd, ridiculous, suggestions are thrown in for consideration. Others are dismissed out of hand. although, Tom, i do beleive that you have been over all fair. and i'd like to be clear in saying, i'm grateful for your efforts to create a fair discussion, i did not mean that as an attack, but to make a point...

and my point is, influence.

in real life, right and wrong, often depends more on who is popular, or powerful, than actual right and wrong. this is not a complaint, but rather a statement of fact, and certainly creates many fun situations... it adds conflict to the game, beyond the simple quest for assets.

with conflict... their of course should be risks and rewards. and their are more ways to fight for what you want, than simply shooting

in fact, their are many popular players that have more influence, and power, than the strongest warlords. it is an interesting, and fun aspect of the game. i do not wish to change that.

the point that i'm making. is that by removing the risk of the war game, these powerful diplomats, maintain their power base, at a much reduced risk. over all moving the power base more peaceful.

thats wrong with that? one might ask

honestly, the player base is already extremely on the peace side. any player that chooses to fight wars, is considered a "thief and thug," so their is a general attitude that war is morally WRONG. discouraging players from warring... by swinging the power base in favor of peaceful players, you are only putting the power of peer pressure, into the hands of people who shun war, and warlike players. meaning, the military power base, will continue to be lop sided, until all the war players leave.

so the thought of making defense stronger, in a way to remove the intimidation factor... ok. but by making "unbreakable" countries possible, and by adding extreme changes (1 war per month.) you are creating an environment, where peaceful players are able to wield their influence, with out being able to be challenged. meaning, the incentive of war disappears... as you could never have the same influence as a peaceful player, and can never hope to overcome them in war.

so an incentive FOR war needs to be added, with all the increases in defense... or a limit to peaceful players... making being are risk, have value.

Rules should not be added in a way, that makes countries unbreakable. if a player truly doesn't want war, they should be able to opt out. giving up the risk of war, they should give up the ability to be on SC. If they don't want to risk anything, they should not be able to have an in game way to influence any one.

and thats my point, if a player doesn't want to put their in game assets at risk, they should not be able to effect my in game assets, via boycotts, or sc resolutions.

oohhh ohhhh ohhh, Thats real nice, 1 person said hi, Everone cares more about war then to say hi to me

war war war Hi, BR! war war

THANK YOU

There is now a toall on this fourm. U have to say hi to me before makeing your long lecture.